Does section 654 of the Criminal Code bar an ex-felon from a separate punishment for possessing a firearm under the same law?

[8] First, Bradford and Venegas set forth the "principle that if the evidence demonstrates at most that fortuitous circumstances put the firearm in the defendant's hand only at the instant of committing another offense, section 654 will bar a separate punishment for the possession of the weapon by an ex-felon." ( People v. Ratcliff (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1401, 1412, 273 Cal.Rptr. 253.) In contrast to the defendants in Venegas and Bradford, here, defendant had possession of the gun for greater than the "instant of committing" the theft. The theft was incidental only to his acquisition of the gun. Where his dominion and control over the gun extends beyond the mere "instant of committing" another offense, a trial court may reasonably find that the firearm possession was separate and distinct from the fortuitous possession of the gun at the moment of the theft. (See People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1566-1567, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 155.)

[9] Second, defendant's argument fails because "[i]t is defendant's intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible." ( People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335, 256 Cal.Rptr. 401, 768 P.2d 1078.) Therefore, the mere fact that the theft was "physically simultaneous" to the possession of the firearm does not prohibit multiple punishment.